New LENSES coming! - [Olympus Lens Roadmap 2021!]

[ac12]

They look to me like digital mockups. There's no branding on the top side, etc. My guess is the relative size is correct and they used the "standard shell" of their F/4 pro lenses. We should bang the "MF Clutch" pot loudly all around the forums, as I agree with you 100%. That clutch would be great.

I just thought of something.
If it is a rough digital mockup, primarily for size, it could leave a lot of non-relevant details off. Such as a clutch focus ring, etc.
Even if it is internal or extending zoom. Though I still think it will be an extending zoom.

 

[ac12]

What's interesting is there's still 2 M. Zuiko Pro telephoto zooms on their roadmap to come.

View attachment 906962

Those two lenses are really curious, because they overlap so much.
Because they overlap so much, I think they are very different lenses.

I think the pair will be:

• 50-200/2.8 with Sync-IS. To upgrade/replace the 40-150/2.8
• 50-250/4 with Sync-IS. Longer reach than the 40-150/4, and with Sync-IS.

It would be really cool if OMDS pulled a page out of the old Olympus book and made a 50-200/2

But the lens will be HUGE. The filter would have to be larger than 100mm.​

 

[Aristophanes]

Those two lenses are really curious, because they overlap so much.
Because they overlap so much, I think they are very different lenses.

I think the pair will be:

• 50-200/2.8 with Sync-IS. To upgrade/replace the 40-150/2.8
• 50-250/4 with Sync-IS. Longer reach than the 40-150/4, and with Sync-IS.

It would be really cool if OMDS pulled a page out of the old Olympus book and made a 50-200/2

But the lens will be HUGE. The filter would have to be larger than 100mm.​

A 50-200/2.8 would be considerably larger than the 40-150/2.8 PRO.

 

[ac12]

A 50-200/2.8 would be considerably larger than the 40 150/2.8.

And HEAVIER

And that would expose a gap.
If it replaced the 40-150/2.8, then there would not be a lighter f/2.8 lens to compete with the Panasonic 35-100/2.8. As it is, the 40-150/2.8 really can't compete for size/lightness with the P 35-100/2.8.
For light it would be the 40-150/4, but that is a stop slower than the P 35-100/2.8. And if you need the lens speed, for low light, f/2.8 wins.

 

[JonSnih]

If it is a rough digital mockup, primarily for size, it could leave a lot of non-relevant details off. Such as a clutch focus ring, etc.

The O17mm F1.8 is only 38 mm long and it features a MF clutch. It would be odd to leave it on a PRO product/prime.

50-200/2.8 with Sync-IS. To upgrade/replace the 40-150/2.8

The 40-150mm F2.8 zoom is very popular and very likely R&D costs have been already covered. This is a profitable item which has to stay in Zuiko/OM lens catalogue to keep the business going.

If it replaced the 40-150/2.8, then there would not be a lighter f/2.8 lens to compete with the Panasonic 35-100/2.8. As it is, the 40-150/2.8 really can't compete for size/lightness with the P 35-100/2.8.

Maybe there will never be a direct competitor to the PL35-100mm F2.8. Oly has been reluctant to release any zoom bellow F2.8 so far. That is why they came with the idea of F1.2 primes. On the other hand I would like to see something like a 25-100mm F2.5.

 

[doady]

50-200mm F2.8 IS also would not complement the 12-40mm F2.8 well compared to the 40-150 F2.8, with the gap in focal lengths, and probably much bigger and more expensive too. Likewise, 50-250mm F4 IS won't replace the 40-150mm F4.

I'm probably the only person in the world who got into Micro Four Thirds without any intention to get a telephoto lens, but after using 12-100mm for almost two years, I am starting to enjoy telephoto more and more. If I ever decide to get a telephoto lens, 50-250mm F4 would be appealing.

 

[ac12]

50-200mm F2.8 IS also would not complement the 12-40mm F2.8 well compared to the 40-150 F2.8, with the gap in focal lengths, and probably much bigger and more expensive too. Likewise, 50-250mm F4 IS won't replace the 40-150mm F4.

I'm probably the only person in the world who got into Micro Four Thirds without any intention to get a telephoto lens, but after using 12-100mm for almost two years, I am starting to enjoy telephoto more and more. If I ever decide to get a telephoto lens, 50-250mm F4 would be appealing.

I had thought that the 40-150 would be a Sync-IS version of the 40-150/2.8.
But now that the 40-150 is an f/4 lens, the only spot left is the 50-200.
With the announced 40-150/4, a 50-200/4 does not make sense.
Yes, a 50-200/2.8 Sync-IS, would be bigger, heavier and more expensive than the 40-150/2.8. And the 40-150/2.8 is not exactly a light lens.

I'm thinking the 40-150/4 does not have IS, so it's big brother would be a 50-250/4 with Sync-IS.

 

[PakkyT]

I had thought that the 40-150 would be a Sync-IS version of the 40-150/2.8.
But now that the 40-150 is an f/4 lens

The 12-100 PRO is sync IS and is f4 so there is nothing inherent to f4 that would prevent a lens not having Sync IS. So a 50-200/250 f4 could indeed be a Sync IS lens as well as a f2.8 version of either.

It does seem odd to have basically three new PRO level zooms all of roughly the same focal length according to the roadmap. I mean releasing a 50-200 or 75-250 or something like that is a little different than the just announced 40-150 F4 PRO, but TWO more lenses that are in nearly the same as each other? What can it be that they have up their sleeve to make each of these three new lenses stand out from one another rather than just confusing customers with very subtle difference?

 

[doady]

50-200mm F2.8 and 50-250mm F4 will have IS, according to the recent OM survey, while the 40-150mm F4 will not have IS, according to the recent road map. These must be "big brother" options, as ac12 suggests.

Small 40-150mm F4 vs. big 40-150mm F2.8.
Small 40-150mm F4 vs. big 50-250mm F4 IS.
Big 40-150mm F2.8 vs. even bigger 50-200mm F2.8 IS.
Big 50-250mm F4 IS vs. even bigger 50-200mm F2.8 IS.

People would be able to prioritize IS or F2.8 or both, depending on how much they are willing to carry (and pay). A choice for everyone.

 

[MichailK]

The O17mm F1.8 is only 38 mm long and it features a MF clutch. It would be odd to leave it on a PRO product/prime.

the 12-45 is without one, if I remember well

 

[John King]

the 12-45 is without one, if I remember well

Correct. No clutch.

https://shop.olympus.com.au/m-zuiko-ed-12-45mm-f4-pro

 

[Dion Houston Sr.]

Been reading with high interest this thread -- it definitely looks like there's some good stuff happening.

For the telephoto, I'm basically with what I think is the consensus -- all depends on the details. I have the 12-40mm and 40-150mm f/2.8 Pros (the latter with the MC-20), as well as 10mm, 17mm, 45mm primes and the el cheapola 40-150mm 4-5.6.

Lately, the 40-150mm f/2.8 "beast" has stayed at home. Awesome lens, but with the required tripod it is very heavy and bulky. Flying in Europe with just a carry on is very convenient, and that's hard to do with the "heavy kit" - plus reach - 150mm is OK, but I'd like to reach out a little more. With the MC-20 I already lose two stops, and 5.6 is a little soft - I generally shoot 8.

The el cheapola is OK. To be honest, I frequently miss the beast. I like birding, but it's a bit too slow in autofocus. It's OK for stationary objects, and of course super small, so there's little cost in bringing it. So this new f/4 is attractive. Doesn't help me with reach, but f/4 and weather sealing seems like it'd be a significant upgrade.

 

[Holoholo55]

A 50-200/2.8 would be considerably larger than the 40-150/2.8 PRO.

That's true. Here's an interesting comparison. 40-150 f2.8 Pro vs. PL 50-200 f2.8-4. Panasonic can make a 50-200 lens that's smaller and lighter than the 40-150 Pro. I'm sure Olympus could make a 50-200 f4 that's smaller than the 40-150 Pro. Maybe smaller than the PL. That's what I'd want to see.

 

[JonSnih]

Small 40-150mm F4 vs. big 40-150mm F2.8.
Small 40-150mm F4 vs. big 50-250mm F4 IS.
Big 40-150mm F2.8 vs. even bigger 50-200mm F2.8 IS.
Big 50-250mm F4 IS vs. even bigger 50-200mm F2.8 IS.

People would be able to prioritize IS or F2.8 or both, depending on how much they are willing to carry (and pay). A choice for everyone.

There will be 4 PRO mid-tele zooms one day. 3 of them will be top tier glass. It seems like too many options than it would be neccessary. I would alter your F stop suggestions. I still think that a 50-200mm will be an F3.2 with IS, a bold version of the old Zuiko 50-200mm F2.8-3.5. That would be different enough from the 50-250mm F4 IS/ or a 70-250mm F3.5 IS which will be the only heavy duty (77mm filter).

That's true. Here's an interesting comparison. 40-150 f2.8 Pro vs. PL 50-200 f2.8-4. Panasonic can make a 50-200 lens that's smaller and lighter than the 40-150 Pro. I'm sure Olympus could make a 50-200 f4 that's smaller than the 40-150 Pro. Maybe smaller than the PL. That's what I'd want to see.

A PL50-200 is a Sigma design. Only a 40-150mm F4 will be small. Everything else will be "generous" in size. A presence of a 40-150mm F4 negates a possible 50-200mm F4.

 

[Baenwort]

If they intend to replace my 40-150 pro they will need one of them to be a internal zoom.

 

[PakkyT]

I find it interesting that everyone just assumes all the new PRO lenses must feature constant aperture through the range, but why not something like the old 4/3rds 50-200 with variable aperture. Just make that lens for m43. This allows them to offer something that is a sort of in-between the constant f2.8 and f4 lenses for aperture as well as longer on the zoom end without having it require a 72mm or larger filter thread.

 

[Dion Houston Sr.]

I find it interesting that everyone just assumes all the new PRO lenses must feature constant aperture through the range, but why not something like the old 4/3rds 50-200 with variable aperture. Just make that lens for m43. This allows them to offer something that is a sort of in-between the constant f2.8 and f4 lenses for aperture as well as longer on the zoom end without having it require a 72mm or larger filter thread.

Yeah, that's a good point. At least with a 40-150mm it's just a visual comparing it to what I call the el cheapola. f/4 to f/5.6 on the far end. To me, the same apertures in a weather sealed lens would be a non-starter.

Now bringing it out to 300mm -- there's room there, since 300mm equivalency with my MC-20 is effectively a drop to f/8. A 40-250 f/4-5.6 would be tempting to me at least...

 

[archaeopteryx]

It seems like too many options than it would be necessary.

It can depend some on the business model. For example, Panasonic has

• 45-150 f/4-5.6: smallest, lightest
• 45-175 f/4-5.6: power, internal zoom
• 45-200 f/4-5.6: default
• 50-200 f/2.8-4: higher end

My personal interpretation of what Panasonic's doing is the 45-150 and 45-175 are legacy lenses they'll keep selling because there's stock and their R&D is fully amortized. There's more emphasis on the 45-200 II and 50-200, those two lenses being a typical high/low telezoom offering.

OMD could be thinking to do something similar by putting the 40-150 R and 40-150 2.8 into legacy. Updating both of those lenses into Sync IS and wider focal length ranges would make sense, both with respect to Panasonic and lineup technology updating. There's also other companies moving towards dual IS offerings.

 

[DeeJayK]

I find it interesting that everyone just assumes all the new PRO lenses must feature constant aperture through the range, but why not something like the old 4/3rds 50-200 with variable aperture. Just make that lens for m43. This allows them to offer something that is a sort of in-between the constant f2.8 and f4 lenses for aperture as well as longer on the zoom end without having it require a 72mm or larger filter thread.

I think that the market has concluded (incorrectly, IMO) that such designs are unsuitable for video applications. And so in an increasingly competitive environment where manufacturers cannot afford to bypass any potential segment they are hesitant to produce such lenses, particularly at the "professional" end of the spectrum.

I would love to be proven wrong in this speculation, as I'd like to see more competitors in this segment, but I fear that a constant maximum aperture is seen as a badge of a "quality" lens.

- K

 

[doady]

The previous seven Pro zooms are constant aperture. The upcoming 40-150mm F4 is constant aperture. 50-200mm F2.8 IS and 50-250mm F4 IS were listed as options on OM's own survey. So I think it's safe to assume they will be constant aperture.

They are not going release two Pro lenses with similar focal lengths at the same time in addition to two other Pro lenses with similar focal lengths and make them some sort of compromise or "middle ground" or hybrid lenses with variable aperture. These four lenses are going to be different from each other, and that means constant apertures. They already used similar strategy with the Pro ultra-wide and standard zooms.

7-14mm F2.8 vs. 8-25mm F4
12-40mm F2.8 vs. 12-100mm F4 IS vs. 12-45mm F4
40-150mm F2.8 vs. ?????

The only real question is why it took them so long to decide to give people more telephoto options when telephoto is supposed to be the main advantage of their system.